10.12.2013

The White Girls' "Scandal"

Let me be clear. I do not think this will be anywhere nearly as successful as Scandal. I was horrified to learn Stuart Townsend owed someone a blood debt is tied to this project, but that's a whole other discussion.

This lily white cast is going to draw in the white girls...and that's pretty much it. I'm not saying it won't get a few seasons; after all, this is America and Stuart Townsend has to win back all the white girls he pissed off when he starred opposite Aaliyah, Gabrielle Union, and Aisha Tyler. But it's not Scandal. It will never be Scandal.

Likewise.I tried... and I tried to watch the trailer. I'm sorry,but I just couldn't get into Betrayal no kind of way . I literally wasn't feeling this mess. The chemistry isn't there and the cast in it just seems unsexy..though some of the characters are in provocative scenes. This series seems to be a rush job for ratings. I'll give it a year and it will be finished.This may be another Scandal wanna be flop from NBC.

According to Rick Kissell at Variety: "The rookie series that would seem to be the most in danger — and in dire need of a ratings uptick — are NBC’s Thursday comedy “Welcome to the Family” and ABC’s Sunday drama “Betrayal.” Both did a mere 0.8 rating/2 share in adults 18-49 in their timeslots last week, according to Nielsen."

Wow! I thought that "Betrayal "was going to suck..but doggone..my god!rating-wise that series REALLY suck! Those ratings are terrible. I thought that it would be at least 2. Even though "Deception" was a disappointment, the ratings was better than that of Betrayal. You guys are right. Why did I give it a year? Where was my mind/

I didn't even finish watching the whole trailer. Didn't have to. That show looks so generic and the plot has already been in dozens of movies. I believe if " Scandal" and "Sleepy Hallow" had white leads and a predominantly white cast they just would have been another primetime soap opera and another scifi/ fantasy show, that would've had to compete with all the other white/ predominantly white soap operas and scifi fantasy shows, nothing special about them.

What these network execs need to know it's not just what the show is about that makes it successful but also who's in them. Lets face it, white has been done to death. Everything you could do with white has been done. Putting someone in roles where you haven't seen them before peaks an interest, such as putting poc in lead roles where they're not playing stereotypes can bring in an audience because its rare to see. Whites, not so much, they would have high competition and would have to stand out among the rest. I guess it's the price you pay for being " the neutral storyteller".

What i find funny is had they use anyone other than white and heterosexual this show might have actually been interesting. It could have been a hit. You know, every time I hear someone bash black women it just makes me realize just how expendable WOMEN are, not just black, but women in general. And I think shows like this one and characters like Katrina ( Sleepy Hallow) and Jo (Twisted) are an attempt to keep white women relevant. You see how a lot of shows have poc and non heterosexual characters in them and not just as stereotypes and sidekicks (Scandal), (Sleepy Hallow). And even as ( Orange Is The New Black), ( Glee). But they need the presence of poc and non heterosexual characters to bring an audience to an otherwise bland, boring, run of the mill show.

What these network execs need to know it's not just what the show is about that makes it successful but also who's in them. Lets face it, white has been done to death. Everything you could do with white has been done.

Of course in my head I'm like "Dah, no sh*t!" I'm trying to figure out why we went backwards from what was going on in the late 80's-90's-early 00. But I then remembered this article:

A Different World was the last black sitcom to be a hit—but why?- http://www.avclub.com/articles/a-different-world-was-the-last-black-sitcom-to-be,90788/

"Stepakoff’s explanation boils down, essentially, to money. Since the early ’80s, networks have increasingly chased younger viewers, usually in the 18-to-49-year-old demographic, because said viewers are supposed to spend their money more freely and be more likely to try out new brands. Thus, they’re more attractive to the advertisers who underwrite the broadcast-network business model."

"What happened is easy enough to understand, and it’s one of the same reasons for TV’s increasing lack of blue-collar sitcoms: The more networks could provide advertisers with demographic information, the more those advertisers chased the demographics with the most money. According to Stepakoff, in the ’90s, this meant chasing white parents and their teenagers, which ended up being The WB’s demographic. These viewers might have been reliable Cosby viewers 10 years earlier—after all, the Huxtables were affluent, just like the theoretical WB viewers—but increasingly, networks, driven by advertisers, believed that rich white people who would spend the most money on products wanted to see more white people, ideally affluent as well."

This last part basically summed up what's going on with movies (distributors especially), because 90 % of American's get their mass media from 9 conglomerate companies: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/the-propaganda-model/

"But hadn’t that always been the case? Naturally, it had. Stepakoff, then, points to another change in TV that led to this new reality: the repeal of the Financial Interest and Syndication Rules by Congress and the Clinton administration in 1993. Briefly, the so-called fin-syn rules prevented too much media consolidation, meaning that TV networks were supposed to be under different ownership than the companies that brought them their programming. Thus, the networks made much of their money on advertising, while the production companies made much of their money once the shows went into syndication and a smaller amount off network licensing fees. Once the fin-syn rules were overturned (largely due to the rise of Fox and cable networks, which didn’t have to play under the same rules), that meant networks could buy programs produced by production companies and studios under the same corporate umbrella as they were. This maximized the amount of profit any one corporation could make off of any one show, and the majority of programs networks air today are produced by companies owned by the same corporation. If not, they’re produced by companies owned by other giant media conglomerates, like Warner Bros. Television. While this was a financial boon to TV networks and led to more ambitious (and probably better) television, it also choked out an important part of the TV landscape: the independent production company."

Anyone else notice that in this trailer picture, aside from the girl in the back, these are a group of the most non white looking white people ever seen. Where's the prerequisite blonde that's in every show that everyone chases after? It's almost as if the execs know that all lily white doesn't really sell anymore. (Oh the irony)

Look...my mind starts to wander 5 seconds into the trailer. After that, I yawn.

The only time I was able to sit through the whole thing was when it was advertised on the coattails of the Scandal Season 3 premiere. Since then, whenever it comes on TV, I yawn and start flipping channels.

This blog is strictly moderated. Everyone is now able to comment again, however, all Anonymous posts will be immediately deleted. Comments on posts more than 30 days old are generally dismissed, so try to stay current with the conversations.